Bacontastesgood:PsiChick: /*And, as you would know if you knew the first damn thing about gun safety, while you are carrying a loaded weapon you DO NOT TAKE ACTION THAT MIGHT PROVOKE A FIGHT.//Godfarkingdamn, how do people miss the most basic gun-safety rules?

Seriously. If you are confronting someone and you have a gun, and get close enough for hand-to-hand, you farked up royally.

Also, this. No one has claimed that Zimmerman was a very smart man. But that does not mean he committed a crime.

steamingpile:RockSteadyUSMC: The judicial system worked exactly how it's supposed to. There was enough reasonable doubt to acquit, and that was how it should be. The judicial system convicts based on facts and should prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not convict based on public opinion.

Just a little riot, in a few places. I am glad of that. Seems no one's been hurt. Very good news, that.

Still, only racists thought Zimmerman was guilty unless they never listened to anything after the initial NBC report.

Still, only racists thought Zimmerman was innocent unless they never listened to anything after the initial NBC report.

The racists in America were people who had made up their minds before the trial and evidence. Saying that only Trayvon supporters are racist is simply wrong. There are a terribly large amount of racist Zimmerman supporters, a lot of which in this very thread.

Look, I am happy for the verdict, but it's no secret why I have been trolling Zimmerman supporters. Just because the law favors your line of thinking does not excuse them from racism. In contrast, had this been a black man shooting a white teen, many Zimmerman supporters, and Trayvon supporters, would be flipped flopped.

That's my point. The only thing that matters is law, and common sense. Both the law, and the black community showed lots of common sense. Most of the posters here are not.

Some farker mentioned in a previous thread that if he is found not guilty, the TM's family can't go after him with a civil lawsuit. Apparently CNN thinks that they can. Any FL law farkers know anything about this?

Curious:Facetious_Speciest: There's no "legal standing" required to ask people questions.

so if i happen to see you on the street and start questioning your right to be there you'll be cool with it?

and if so why? what right do i have to question you?

If I'm a reasonable person, I would give you a brief audience to determine what it is you are inquiring of me, and if appropriate, I would answer. If you continue to question me and I'm not interested in having the exchange, I would tell you to go away. If you didn't go away, I could do a variety of things, depending on the circumstances. Break your nose with my fist and pound your head into the concrete would not be a reasonable option. Is this hard to understand?

PsyLord:Some farker mentioned in a previous thread that if he is found not guilty, the TM's family can't go after him with a civil lawsuit. Apparently CNN thinks that they can. Any FL law farkers know anything about this?

They can file suit of course then a judge will look at motions to determine if it is self defense. The verdict in the criminal trial would be considered as well. If it was determined to be self defense he will be shielded from civil suits and the family would owe him legal expenses.

(1)A person who uses force as permitted in s. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute &Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html">776.012, s. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute &Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html">776.013, or s. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute &Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.031.html">776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute &Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0943/Sections/0943.10.html">943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.(2)A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.(3)The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

No. No he won't. Go threaten a Brownie, or sumptin'.....(oh yeah....and don't be a teenage bunghole making doo-doo in a neighborhood other than your own, on any given day, or night. It might give you a severe case of the deads.)

What does that even mean?Yes, he'll be dead before he's 50 (and that's a conservative estimate), either from his liver falling out or by his own gun.

Anyway, isn't this the part where the people who kept crying about the rioting that was going to happen now tell us that they don't have a racist bone in their body?

iq_in_binary:Coastalgrl: What I would like to see (but will most likely never happen) is a national discussion on the quality and ethics of our media. I did not closely follow this case because the media's handling of it I knew it was going to turn into a fear mongering outrage hate fest where no one really wins and there is only one clear loser; the young man who lost his life.

From what I can tell from the people in this thread who are in law enforcement is that the justice system was able to provide a fair trial somehow without the affects of the media and Zimmerman was cleared based on reasonable doubt. It also sounds like the prosecution focused on feelings rather than developing an actual case. I think this is the right call despite if I think that Zimmerman is a bigoted jerk.

If I was ever in a situation where I am accused of something I did not do or actually acted in self defense, I hope that the justice system is able to provide a fair trial.

I'm not a member of law enforcement, in fact I actually worked against it. I was a legal investigator, I was the guy that found evidence for the defense. The fact that he was found not guilty by reasonable doubt doesn't piss me off. What pisses me off is that there wasn't a crime that fit what he did. He went looking for a fight, he found it, he lost, he shot the winner. That there isn't a crime that holds him liable for going looking for that fight is the problem. The "Stand Your Ground" mentality is a big reason for that. I'm a "Castle Doctrine" kind of guy myself. Anybody who accidentally opens a locked door deserves whatever fate lies beyond said door, if it happens to be me with the shotgun in my closet or even if I decide to get resourceful, yeah you earned it.

This isn't the case. Zimmerman went looking for a fight. That he's found innocent even despite that sets a VERY scary precedent. And this is coming from a guy who's so hard on self defense issues as to view even preemptive homicide justifiable if you can establish ...

If you get some time in between lying, I'm still waiting for you to put out.

I can accept that Zimmerman was being beaten by a large young man and in reasonable fear for his life, and I would not deny him the right to defend himself. I can accept that, according to the law, Zimmerman is not guilty.

But the idea that he's this poor, innocent victim of all these mean reporters and lawyers just makes me sick. It doesn't seem he's going to be held in any way accountable for his irresponsible actions and choices that led directly to the shooting. I don't think he should spend his entire life in jail, but how can you do what he did and walk away? Crazy.

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Zimmerman would not have gotten the benefit of this particular jury instruction in any state in which a person has a duty to retreat before using deadly force to meet a threat of deadly force.

Don't like 35 states have SYG laws at this point? The idea you need to run from someone who is trying to kill you before defending yourself is insane.

Here in Pennsylvania we still have a duty to retreat and the sky hasn't fallen on us yet.

Wrong. As a PA resident who has carefully followed the law on this point, let me enlighten you:

18 Pa CS 505(b)(2.3)

(2.3) An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, who is not in illegal possession of a firearm and who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a duty to retreat under paragraph (2)(ii) has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force, if:(i) the actor has a right to be in the place where he was attacked;(ii) the actor believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat; and(iii) the person against whom the force is used displays or otherwise uses:(A) a firearm or replica of a firearm as defined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 (relating to sentences for offenses committed with firearms); or(B) any other weapon readily or apparently capable of lethal use.

In other words, if someone threatens or attacks you with a deadly weapon (knife, baseball bat, gun, piece or rebar, etc.) THEN you have no duty to retreat and can shoot them on the spot. If they just come at you with their fists, THEN you need to try to get away first and only open fire if you can no longer escape.

Mjeck:PunGent: Heron: PunGent: Heron: UNC_Samurai: This is about the prosecution being unable to put together a compelling case.

You don't go to jail just for being proven a racist asshole.

I think it's more the jury not understanding their instruction. 2nd degree murder was a stretch, but an armed person starting an altercation which ends in the death of another is classic manslaughter. That they didn't convict on that charge shows they either didn't understand the conditions for that verdict, or chose not to apply them.

Or didn't find enough evidence that Z. started the altercation.

The idea that he got out of his car and Trayvon immediately jumped him is not reasonable. He confronted that kid, he made that kid feel threatened, the kid then responded by defending himself, and Z shot him. Z created the conflict, and then chose to use lethal force in it. People who do the same thing in bars get convicted of manslaughter all the time. It is routine.

Routine? I'd say it's more of a coin-toss as to whether they get charged at all...certainly the average bar-brawl doesn't get a full-court press. Need national media attention for that.

That aside, all I've seen here is that Z. followed M...that's not enough to "create a conflict", legally speaking.

You show me that Z. pulled out his weapon, or punched M first, or something like that...ya, Z goes down for manslaughter at the least. But I haven't seen anything like that, certainly not seen it proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

I agree... but for shiats and giggles, what about negligence causing death/bodily harm? (something slightly less than manslaughter)

I don't know Florida law on negligence, crim or civ, but my gut feeling is, if Z was legally on the sidewalk, not threatening M (according to some "reasonableness" standard, in the old English law, ie, saying "Hey" isn't enough) and not doing anything illegal...he's not negligent.

Z waving his gun at M, and the trigger goes off by accident? Negligence, sure. Yank his gun license for life, and send him away for the appropriate amount of time. And let his family sue his ass off, to boot.

But head being pounded on the sidewalk? only takes a SINGLE round of that to fark you up for life, if not kill you...subdural hematoma, brain shear, brain bleed...no good outcomes there.

And I still haven't heard a single reasonable alternate explanation as to how that happened, except M did it. And therefore, unless you can prove Z started the fight, Z walks in my book...and in the eyes of the jury, apparently.

Millennium:Bacontastesgood: PsiChick: /*And, as you would know if you knew the first damn thing about gun safety, while you are carrying a loaded weapon you DO NOT TAKE ACTION THAT MIGHT PROVOKE A FIGHT.//Godfarkingdamn, how do people miss the most basic gun-safety rules?

Seriously. If you are confronting someone and you have a gun, and get close enough for hand-to-hand, you farked up royally.

Also, this. No one has claimed that Zimmerman was a very smart man. But that does not mean he committed a crime.

True. But if he had backed off like the 911 operator at first suggested, then this whole sorry affair might not have happened. Who's to say?

MagSeven:hasty ambush: MagSeven: shastacola: Mid_mo_mad_man: Zimmerman was found not guilty. If one followed the court everyday this was an easy verdict to reach. It's clear Martin was not scared of Zimmerman but he was angry. Martin was a thug with a violent past. He was on marijuana and didn't have a clear rational head. Zimmerman had a legal right to follow Martin. He had the right to call 911. No law was broken till Martin jumped George. Once that happened he was in his rights to shot Martin. No tears should be shed for Martin.

Ever notice how many Zimmerman fans feel a need to paint Martin as a thug? What was any more "thuggish" about him than most teenagers? He got suspended from school for graffiti,truancy and pot. Please explain how this makes him a "violent thug".

Well, the actual violence he participated in, referring to your last sentence. But I am really starting to hate the word thug. It's starting to become the "N-word" when you cant say the actual phrase "N-word". How far down the rabbit hole will these hyphenated code words delve?

Or perhaps, just perhaps, vandalizing property, having drugs at school, getting suspended, caught with stolen property, attacking bus drivers, getting kicked out of school, involved in the illegal purchase of a handgun and behaving so badly that your mom kicks you out to go live with your dad can be described correctly as Thug like-regardless of race, ethnicity or country of origin.

So the word thug is being used correctly in this case . Just as it would apply to those who threaten to riot if the jury did not find the way they wanted them to.

Nah. A guy does all this in Britain, you call him a hooligan or hoodie, unless he's black then you call him a thug. Thug seems to be reserved for black guys and members of subcontinental Indian death cults who work for dudes who can perform heart surgery without a scalpel. But by all means prove me wrong. Give me a list of your top ten favorite white thugs (difficulty: no one who ever used a tommy gun.)

A person earns the description of "Thug" by engaging in thuggish behavior. Anyone who sees it as a racial slur is blinded by their perception of persecution. I can give you some example of "white thugs" - the Hell's Angels motorcycle gang. Very thuggish, lots of murder, lots of violence and crime. How about skinny, white meth heads. How about skinheads? And yes, the Mafia (Italian, Russian, etc). Mexican Cartels...Thugs. Islamic Terrorists...Thugs. Thug BEHAVIOR earns the description of Thug. And if you're a black person engaging in thug behavior, you are also a Thug. Have skinny Al Sharpton give me a call if he has a problem with that.

Heron:UNC_Samurai: This is about the prosecution being unable to put together a compelling case.

You don't go to jail just for being proven a racist asshole.

I think it's more the jury not understanding their instruction. 2nd degree murder was a stretch, but an armed person starting an altercation which ends in the death of another is classic manslaughter. That they didn't convict on that charge shows they either didn't understand the conditions for that verdict, or chose not to apply them.

It was not proven that GZ started the altercation. In fact, the evidence suggests that TM started it. TM supporters won't even consider this possibility though...to them, TM was just a child walking home with skittles and GZ attacked and killed him.

mikeray:Your Average Witty Fark User: shower_in_my_socks: EvilRacistNaziFascist: I'll tell you something, and this goes for 99.9% of the people like me who you probably despise: no matter what your racial background might be, if you are trying to beat us to death we will resist you using any means necessary; and if we are armed and can save our lives by shooting your thug ass dead, we will do it. Consider yourselves forewarned.

And if you stalk me at night and then accost me, I'm going to get punchy. And if you respond by shooting me point-blank in the heart, and then get away with it, my friends and family will hunt you down like a dog. Consider yourself forewarned.

This is how I see it. Apparently it was ok for Zimmerman to defend himself, but not Martin. That's cool. Next time I won't stop punching until they're dead. You know, standing my ground and all.

That is well a thought out response, maybe they were both defending themselves and if that is the case then I guess GM did the better job.

Just maybe TM thought like you did and was going to punch until GZ was dead, hopefully you will be a little more successful.

The fact is, no one knows the truth of what happened except for Zimmerman and Martin. Martin had just as much legal right to be there as Zimmerman did. He was committing no crime. If some random dude is stalking me in the night, I'd stand my ground too. However, now knowing how this shiat works, I'll stand my ground to the death. Martin should've killed him.

I know, now the racists on TV, Twitter and Facebook can keep screaming about how Zimmerman got away with murder.

You don't know what "racists" means. Here's what actual racists think, and they aren't disappointed at all in fact they're using words like "hero" which is saying something since zimmerman isn't even white.

My apologies if linking these two threads makes it harder to remember which account name to use where.

Somacandra:I'll just leave this here for thought. We need some goddamn common sense.

Oh really? When the 14 yo was approached, did he throw punches with the strength of a 17yo football player? Did he slam the guy's head into the concrete? If not, I can see why he was returned home safely to his family. He's right, he not Trayvon Martin. TM had bloody knuckles (and no other sign of assault on his body until the gun was fired to stop his attack).

Sniper061:tirob: Here in Pennsylvania we still have a duty to retreat and the sky hasn't fallen on us yet.

Wrong. As a PA resident who has carefully followed the law on this point, let me enlighten you:

18 Pa CS 505(b)(2.3)

(2.3) An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, who is not in illegal possession of a firearm and who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a duty to retreat under paragraph (2)(ii) has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force, if:(i) the actor has a right to be in the place where he was attacked;(ii) the actor believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat; and(iii) the person against whom the force is used displays or otherwise uses:(A) a firearm or replica of a firearm as defined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 (relating to sentences for offenses committed with firearms); or(B) any other weapon readily or apparently capable of lethal use..

(2.4) The exception to the duty to retreat set forth under paragraph (2.3)....

---

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:

(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating, except the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be.

Emphasis added by me. Yes, there are exceptions. But the duty to retreat is still on the books, and it applies unless one of the exceptions does. I don't know the case law as regards to what constitutes a weapon "readily or apparently capable of lethal use;" perhaps you could enlighten me.

If anyone even remembers my last post at this point- apologies. Failed to do the research, and assumed the US had 'not proven' as well. Kinda matters as I live here now. *facepalm*

That said, I'm still given to understand that any court case can be taken to federal appeals, without it qualifying under double-jeopardy... or seek conviction of a lesser offense... or be taken to civil court for any number of things related... and on those, I can't seem to find anything explicitly saying otherwise (such as with OJ's wrongful death suit he lost IMMEDIATELY after being found not guilty of murder).

My point being that this still isn't over, per se...

Also, that given innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt AND the case the defense put forward AND the lack of a real case/evidence by the prosecution proving intent or malice on the part of the defendant.... this seems like a legit ruling. The man should still be held responsible to some degree- either wrongful death or for a lesser crime perhaps, as the situation could've most easily been avoided by him listening to the police... but even with the self-defense issue completely put aside, lack of intent pretty well clears him of murder charges at least... and reasonable doubt of the manslaughter.

Not trying to be a troll- just trying to be a moderate voice. Quite dumb of me I'm sure, but... still.